Position on Gun Control and Punishment

Chapter 8 -- pps 168-170

Author's note:  Kennedy and Newfoundland join the USA in 2016.

The quintessential example of the “framers intent” that we were able to implement first in Kennedy and Newfoundland (two new US states) was in the area of gun control.  I do not in any way shape or form disagree that the Second amendment gives the right to bear arms.  We, however, took a much more rational rather than historical or patriotic approach to reinterpret this right to exclude concealed weapons and all assault weapons.

Handguns and shot guns were allowed, but only under license and permit and certainly under overall guidelines on how they should be maintained and when they could be utilized.  Of course, in 2016 the usual rhetoric started about the rights and freedoms of Americans but with the support of our new American citizens in Kennedy and Newfoundland, who did not want guns in their states, we were able to frame an argument to continue gun regulation that would not have been possible at any other time.  The initial trial period and success of the efforts in Kennedy and Newfoundland eventually led most of the other states to implement similar laws.  Today in 2043, only Texas and Alaska have not implemented some form of gun control.

I have been accused on occasion of not defending the Constitution fully, but I disagree with this assessment as the Constitution was always part of any and all discussions.  Our argument was based once again on the intent of the founding fathers.  It is pretty clear that the right to bear arms is matched with a desire to keep unwanted military personnel out of one’s personal premises.  This was of course the result of three guiding objectives in the 1700s.  One, the British were to be fought at all costs, two, the right to own property and the subsequent right to protect your private property was something worth fighting for and three, the freedom to be left alone.  Of these three, I clearly think that the second point was the one that the founding fathers were trying to protect at the time.  Let`s face it, it was the mid-1700s and property was scarce so the point was that a homeowner who had taken the time to develop and build a property had ever right to know that the property could not just be taken away from them and that the use of personal force against any usurper was appropriate.  Keep in mind that the new Americans in the 1700s were trying to establish the concept of private property since they did not have ownership rights while they had been in Europe.  Also, home owners did not have to acquiesce to any type of governmental expropriation of property.  This too was a substantial structural change by Americans who were unable to resist against the land owning classes and, in fact, their goods and possessions as well as their private persons were ultimately owned by their superiors while in Europe.  These rights would have to be defended by force whenever necessary by the new Americans.

Utilizing this rationale, the case was made that the use of firearms to protect private property was universally justified but limited to handguns.  Hunting of course was a prominent part of the culture in Kennedy and Newfoundland and that was not going to change, so shotguns were perfectly acceptable as well.  What were not welcome were concealed weapons and assault weapons, both of which were banned and considered illegal from day one of Kennedy’s and Newfoundland’s founding.  Personal protection on the streets was not considered a valid reason to carry a gun.

-------------------

Three items made this approach possible.

The first, as mentioned earlier was the willingness of our new US citizens to go along with this approach, and as I mentioned it was actually a mandate of the new Americans joining the USA.  Second, was the harsh punishments handed out by the courts towards anyone found with a gun of any sort in their possession without a license or hunting permit.  As well, not having your gun secured properly at home or within mobility situations, for example, driving to a campsite, were met with exceptionally large fines.  For example, all guns during transportation had to be unloaded, in a hard-shell gun case, in a locked position and never in an unlocked part of the vehicle except for loading and unloading.

The third thing was that no costs were attributed to licensing or registering of guns.  All guns had to be registered and it was a very easy and non-bureaucratic process.  You provided your name, your address, the gun make and model as well as the registration number on the gun.  Ammunition did not have to be registered.  If you were found with a gun anywhere on your possession or on your property that was unregistered it was an automatic jail sentence and then a probationary period.

If someone used a gun in the commitment of a crime against another then the automatic jail time period was a minimum of two years.  Discharging a weapon in the commitment of a crime carried with it a minimum sentence of ten years and if an injury was incurred then it went to twenty years.  Murder with a gun became an automatic death penalty regardless of what the motive was determined to be.  If a husband killed his wife he received a death sentence, if someone killed an innocent bystander they received a death sentence.  Guns were not to be tolerated under any circumstances in the execution of violent crime.

Some people at the time, considered the automatic death penalty as particularly harsh and inhumane.  Considering of course that the death penalty did not even exist in Canada prior to joining the US it was also a bit of a surprise.  The new citizens of Kennedy and Newfoundland though were adamant that the violence that is associated with certain parts of US culture would not come to their states.  The new Americans associated the American violent streak in relation mostly to the prevalence and acceptance of guns by the community at large in the United States.  They felt that harsh deterrents were the best way to combat any infiltration of this poor part of own US culture.

As previously mentioned, one significant problem with the US legal system in the early twenty-first century was that all deterrence had been removed from the system.  Now, as we know, forgiveness is a big part of the American way but as I have mentioned many times throughout these pages, personal responsibility had to become more of a hall mark of being an American.  This was especially so in the world of violent crime.  For too long, perpetrators of violent crime were too often able to escape appropriate justice due to a number of excuses such as over-crowding of prisons, bureaucracy, inept legal representation, access to superior legal representation and a myriad of other rules that were designed to protect their right.

Being considered innocent rather than guilty was a fine moral principle and one that I support fanatically as everyone knows.  But once guilt has been established, especially in this instance where we were referring to gun usage, punishment needed to become very severe.  The main thing that citizens came to understand that if guns were utilized in an appropriate manner and in the proper way then absolutely no retribution would ever come to that person.  However, when guns because utilized in criminal enterprises then there would be zero tolerance.  It only took six months of harsh punishments before the issues surrounding guns virtually vanished over night in the new states.  In Kennedy there were only eight murders in the entire calendar year of 2020 and only one involved a gun.  In Newfoundland there were no murders and only two people even got shot.  Let`s face it, the fear of actual and real punishment is really the only option you have against a criminal as they have already demonstrated the they are not committed to societal norms and expectations.

Also, as I mentioned earlier I am not opposed to more harsh sentences for people under-taking wrong-doing, especially in relation to violent crime.  The lack of personal accountability and the ridiculous tone of the legal profession made prosecution of violent offenders almost impossible in the early part of the century.  I felt very strongly that this had to change and I fully supported the desire of Kennedy and Newfoundland to not only impose the death penalty but to utilize it.

Excerpt from Chapter 4

Chapter 4 -- page 56

-----------------------

One of the most horrific and misguided thoughts of the time that got embedded in the American psyche was that compassion was equal to socialism or communism.

By 2009, just the comment of a compassionate governmental policy made the speaker into, at a minimum a socialist, and in the worse case, a Hitleresque demagogue who was striving to undermine the entirety of the USA.  That may sound melodramatic, but phrases like that were actually used at the time by American citizens.  I can still remember with disgust back in 2010 when President Obama was trying to implement some type of universal health insurance program so that every American citizen would have access to health care.  The shocking thing to me is that a system, which cared about the general health of all citizens, was considered akin to Nazism by some people.  Even to this day that still strikes me as the most absurd type of rhetoric.  To me and many others, it was an unconscionable misuse of our American right to freedom of speech, and I argued at the time that it should be considered hate speech.  To utilize NAZI imagery in an American political debate is simply immoral on any level.

The Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement were mostly to blame for this rhetoric, and as early as 1980, there had come a point where political expediency was the paramount goal.  Rhetoric could be founded upon any truth or mistruth and could even be what many folks would consider slanderous.  The shocking thing about this situation is that so many American citizens actually accepted this rhetoric and supported it.  I can understand that there was disillusion in the US at the time due to the 2008 economic collapse but to sink to such lows should have been offensive to so many more people.  This is why I argued so strongly that a new definition of freedom needed to be established, as we as a nation, had sunk just too far in our willingness to allow anyone to do or say whatever they chose in the political arena.

Money As A Measure of Individual Value

Money is a great development to humanity.

Humanity by nature is extremely judgmental and money at least is not personal. Utilizing money and wealth as a criteria for human judgement eliminates prejudices based on skin color, religion, geography, gender and this is a great thing. In our modern world, money trumps all else in terms of valuing people's worth and is a wonderful comparative tool such that we can individually get a sense of our worth and our placement in society.

Where this personal valuation has gone awry however is in terms of the origin of one's individual wealth. The mere possession of money has come to supersede the means of accumulating it. In our modern world any single person can accumulate wealth with no regard to the impact one makes on other individuals or society. The worst aspect of our current system though, is that one can accumulate wealth at the expense of others.

In my eyes, accumulation of wealth at the expense of others is not wealth that should be judged as valuable or honorable. I suggest, that wealth that is accumulated without adding value to individuals or society should be shunned and per my initial point regarding human judgment, should actually be judged as negative.

The effect of this negative label would be to encourage individual wealth-building as a result of benefiting a wider group of persons. It would also serve to keep those who have amassed their fortunes in a less than savory manner from having personal influence or access to broader political, business or social institutions.

Unsavory then becomes the criteria for valuation at this stage. Unsavory needs to defined as wealth-accumulation that derives from 1) illegal actions, 2) curtailing production, 3) reducing societal economic conditions or 4) detracting from the human condition. Recent examples of each would be as follows: 1) Bernie Madoff's 25 years of fraud, 2) stock market speculation, 3) Wall Streets debt mortgage products and 4) pornography. This is just a quick list.

Let me state clearly that anyone is still free to amass as large a fortune as they may want.

Ethics though need to be re instituted into wealth-building such that the amount of money that one accumulates is proportionate to that contribution that is made throughout that process.

The Dilemma of Islam

The issue that we are facing with the Islamic religion is a major one.  Whether or not religious freedom can lead to a complete overhaul of the tenets that our nation was founded upon.

By allowing Muslims to enter our society we essentially run the risk that at some point in the future this group becomes powerful enough to usurp the fundamental nature of America.

For example in Britain, a recent poll was conducted within the Muslim community and 40% of the respondents indicated that they would like to see Sharia Law imposed.  Right now, that number does not constitute a large number of voters but it clearly articulates the point for the future and one that we in America have to consider.  Is it right to allow a group of people who are fundamentally opposed to the American way of life into the country?

The First Amendment of the Constitution offers religious freedom as a fundamental right of humanity.  However, if those claiming religious freedoms are not interpreting that doctrine in a manner consistent with freedom but rather pro ports a moral code and political direction that undermines the basic philosophy of individual freedom then should it be opposed?  I would say 100% absolutely.


The Constitution further suggests that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion..." though it does not go as far as separating church and state as many people believe  It is obvious that religious fundamentals are not universally shared but the basis of individual freedom is an ability to make independent decisions.  Any group or organization that disagrees with this view point should be resisted in their access to American institutions or their ability to construct their own.  Individuals would be able to worship as they choose but any attempt to organize to undermine principals of freedom and independence should be opposed.


It is not necessary to ban Muslims from moving to the USA but efforts should definitely be made to curtail them from gaining any type of influence.  For example, several steps can be taken at this point to curtail an emergent political movement that supports Sharia Law or strives to change the nature of America.


The first would be the banning of any Muslim from holding political office at any level.  Two, limiting of mobility within the nations borders upon entry.  Thirdly, the holding back of US citizenship until individuals have demonstrated an ability to appreciate the principals of the western world and finally the out right ban of Muslim schools.


Though these thoughts sound counter-intuitive to the basic fundamentals that the USA holds paramount, keep in mind that America has only ever had to deal with fundamental opposition to freedoms on this scale once before and that lead to a Civil War.  The goal is not to limit individual freedoms rather ensure that the thinking and principals that have allowed the world to thrive continue unabated by a religious/political movement at the institutional level.

The Recognition Era - Part 2, What It Means "Top Ten" List conc.

This post is the continuation of a previous post on Friday, June 15, 2012.

---------------------------------------------------

Six.  Irresponsibility.  The world is very complex and it is pretty tough in today`s social, business, political arenas to assign blame to an individual.  Even in instances whereby direct blame is is obvious the subject can easily find excuses for poor performance.  Problem solving and putting out fires is a better skill these days than foresight.

Seven.  Apathy.  People care about what they consider important more than ever and not much else.  Further,as the need for recognition is paramount, effort will only be put towards areas whereby there can be acknowledgement.  Subsequently, if recognition cannot be attained then people won't care and will not put any effort at all towards areas in which there is no success.

Eight.  Triviality.  Recognition for its own sake does not require significance.  Therefore, people will attempt to succeed in areas that are niche and quite likely inconsequential.  Being acknowledged for being good at something trumps the importance of the activity as well as any type of moral contribution.  As recognition is the key driver, the means of acknowledgement is inconsequential therefore non-traditional socially acceptable means will become mainstream.  Crime, pornography, abhorrent behavior.

Nine.  Ease.  Very few people appear to want to work hard for anything these days.  Recognition and success have to come easy and early for anyone to pursue it.  No one wants to see the fruits of their labor materialize three years down the road.  Instant impact and rewards are what drives motivation in the twenty-first century so abandonment of difficult tasks will occur frequently.

Ten.  Individuality.  Recognition is greatest when it is a singular achievement.  More and more people will strive to be acknowledged for their own efforts rather than being part of a collaborative team. Within the team environment as well there is a need to be considerate and follow much more procedure which is the bane of individuality. As everyone feels that they know what is the best course of action for them, then teamwork will become the antithesis of the individually minded person.

All these things in total do not necessarily require negativity rather a willingness to be accommodating and an ability to manage in this new Recognition era.